Gov. Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota approved the nation’s toughest abortion restrictions on Tuesday, signing into law a measure that would ban most abortions and inviting a legal showdown over just how much states can limit access to the procedure.

Mr. Dalrymple, a Republican, signed into law three bills passed by the Republican-controlled State Legislature. The most far-reaching law forbids abortion once a fetal heartbeat is “detectable,” which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Fetal heartbeats are detectable at that stage of pregnancy using a transvaginal ultrasound.

Most legal scholars have said the law would violate the Supreme Court’s finding in Roe v. Wade that abortions were permitted until the fetus was viable outside the womb, generally around 24 weeks into pregnancy. Even some leaders of the anti-abortion movement nationally have predicted that laws banning abortion so early in pregnancy are virtually certain to be declared unconstitutional by federal courts.

“Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade,” Mr. Dalrymple said in a statement.

I don't 'like' abortion either, but it's not my place as a man to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her own body, especially if I'm in a position of power to force those views on others.That's the issue I have with laws like this.

Logged

"A gladiator does not fear death. He embraces it. Caresses it. Fucks it. Every time he enters the arena, he slides his cock into the mouth of the beast."

Love it when our elected officials act responsible and approve bills such as this banning crimes like... murder.

Please don't bother Hep or AA, definitely not worth either of our time.

Correction: the topic is worth our time. You aren't.

As for the topic, I love hypocrites like this that are probably for corporal punishment but then cry out that murder is wrong. Thankfully, more and more of this nation is calling them on crap like this.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

As for the topic, I love hypocrites like this that are probably for corporal punishment but then cry out that murder is wrong. Thankfully, more and more of this nation is calling them on crap like this.

I love these politicians who will fight like hell to ensure that a baby be born regardless of the circumstances surrounding it (i.e. pregnancy via rape, the health of the mother, incest or sexual assault, etc.). They will then turn around and fight like hell to ensure that any social programs that will actually assist said mother and child to survive are absolutely slashed to the bone.

We must protect that baby under any circumstance! But once it comes out, those damn mothers are nothing but welfare queens mooching off society.

Love it when our elected officials act responsible and approve bills such as this banning crimes like... murder.

Please don't bother Hep or AA, definitely not worth either of our time.

Correction: the topic is worth our time. You aren't.

As for the topic, I love hypocrites like this that are probably for corporal punishment but then cry out that murder is wrong. Thankfully, more and more of this nation is calling them on crap like this.

Or people who say it's okay to kill an innocent unborn baby but not put to death a murderer who committed a crime that is punishable by death?

Love it when our elected officials act responsible and approve bills such as this banning crimes like... murder.

Please don't bother Hep or AA, definitely not worth either of our time.

Correction: the topic is worth our time. You aren't.

As for the topic, I love hypocrites like this that are probably for corporal punishment but then cry out that murder is wrong. Thankfully, more and more of this nation is calling them on crap like this.

Or people who say it's okay to kill an innocent unborn baby but not put to death a murderer who committed a crime that is punishable by death?

I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.

(sorry to have to burst your bubble there if the intent was to call me a hypocrite Love the emotional wording though. It's a standard tactic but I'm guessing it's still effective with some folks.)

« Last Edit: April 01, 2013, 02:17:28 PM by hepcat »

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.

You trust the cops, prosecutors, and people not smart enough to get out of jury duty to convict the right people 100% of the time?

Nope. But then again, I don't expect infallibility from humans in anything.

Just because I believe that a guy who raped and murdered a child and has irrefutable evidence supporting that accusation should be put to death, that doesn't mean I automatically believe everyone who commits a crime should be.

In other words, it's not a black and white issue...no matter how much folks would love to think it is.

Logged

Warning: You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.

I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.

You trust the cops, prosecutors, and people not smart enough to get out of jury duty to convict the right people 100% of the time?

Nope. But then again, I don't expect infallibility from humans in anything.

Just because I believe that a guy who raped and murdered a child and has irrefutable evidence supporting that accusation should be put to death, that doesn't mean I automatically believe everyone who commits a crime should be.

In other words, it's not a black and white issue...no matter how much folks would love to think it is.

I don't see how you can pick and choose who gets the death penalty. Irrefutable evidence gets thrown out 20 years later as technology improves or witnesses recant their testimony. To make exceptions in certain cases (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer) is to open the door for innocent people being put to death.

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.

You trust the cops, prosecutors, and people not smart enough to get out of jury duty to convict the right people 100% of the time?

Nope. But then again, I don't expect infallibility from humans in anything.

Just because I believe that a guy who raped and murdered a child and has irrefutable evidence supporting that accusation should be put to death, that doesn't mean I automatically believe everyone who commits a crime should be.

In other words, it's not a black and white issue...no matter how much folks would love to think it is.

I don't see how you can pick and choose who gets the death penalty. Irrefutable evidence gets thrown out 20 years later as technology improves or witnesses recant their testimony. To make exceptions in certain cases (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer) is to open the door for innocent people being put to death.

I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.

You trust the cops, prosecutors, and people not smart enough to get out of jury duty to convict the right people 100% of the time?

Nope. But then again, I don't expect infallibility from humans in anything.

Just because I believe that a guy who raped and murdered a child and has irrefutable evidence supporting that accusation should be put to death, that doesn't mean I automatically believe everyone who commits a crime should be.

In other words, it's not a black and white issue...no matter how much folks would love to think it is.

I don't see how you can pick and choose who gets the death penalty. Irrefutable evidence gets thrown out 20 years later as technology improves or witnesses recant their testimony. To make exceptions in certain cases (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer) is to open the door for innocent people being put to death.

Being opposed to the state sanctioned murder doesn't mean I am opposed to people being put in prison. If mistakes are made people can be released from prison and hopefully compensated for their lost time. That is not an option with the death penalty.

I am curious what hepcat considers irrefutable that doesn't risk bad test data, fraud by a crime lab, misconduct by the police, etc.

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Being opposed to the state sanctioned murder doesn't mean I am opposed to people being put in prison. If mistakes are made people can be released from prison and hopefully compensated for their lost time. That is not an option with the death penalty.

I am curious what hepcat considers irrefutable that doesn't risk bad test data, fraud by a crime lab, misconduct by the police, etc.

Moliere I don't mean to needle- as I agree the justice system has many many problems- but doesn't the multiple appeals process limit the number of people who can possibly be executed falsely? ANd I understand the 'even if it happens once it's too much' argument, but lets dispense with that.

Really? Do you have some per capita figure that makes it acceptable? Don't forget, these are only the cases where DNA evidence was preserved and in states where the case could be reevaluated. How many hundreds of more people are still in jail because of these limitations?

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

" but doesn't the multiple appeals process limit the number of people who can possibly be executed falsely?"

Yes. But it doesn't eliminate the possibility. What is so wrong with keeping people in prison without the possibility of parole instead of committing state sanctioned murder? According to most sources it is less expensive. We can undo the wrong if they are still alive and in prison. My atheism extends towards my lack of faith in the government being competent enough to never make a mistake when it comes to the death penalty, regardless of how irrefutable the evidence appears.

Logged

That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

I agree since I support the death penalty when folks do something heinous enough to warrant it.

You trust the cops, prosecutors, and people not smart enough to get out of jury duty to convict the right people 100% of the time?

Nope. But then again, I don't expect infallibility from humans in anything.

Just because I believe that a guy who raped and murdered a child and has irrefutable evidence supporting that accusation should be put to death, that doesn't mean I automatically believe everyone who commits a crime should be.

In other words, it's not a black and white issue...no matter how much folks would love to think it is.

I don't see how you can pick and choose who gets the death penalty. Irrefutable evidence gets thrown out 20 years later as technology improves or witnesses recant their testimony. To make exceptions in certain cases (e.g., Jeffrey Dahmer) is to open the door for innocent people being put to death.